Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Italy/Archive 5

Graphs about the pandemic
Hi everybody, graphs about the pandemic are included in almost every article about the COVID-19 pandemic, I think we should keep them here, and not to move them in a separeted article. The article is quite long, it's true but this is not because of a few graphs... -- --Nick.mon (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually yes. If you go to the article page, you can see that in this moment the final template Template:COVID-19 pandemic at the bottom of the page cannot be shown, because the page exceeded the Post-expand include size. This happens when too large templates are used, as is the case here: the graphs are very large templates, furthermore the infobox (which we cannot remove), the chart from Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Italy medical cases chart in the first sections, and finally the Template:COVID-19 pandemic at the bottom. If I'm not missing anything, there is nothing else that is so large (but we should investigate). I think – in order to solve this problem – pointing explicitly to a different pages that contains only the graphs is not a bad option. After all, it's not true that all articles about the pandemic have the graphs, see COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of seroprevalence studies?
There is at least one study that suggested the virus may have been in Italy as early as September:

Apolone, G., Montomoli, E., Manenti, A., Boeri, M., Sabia, F., Hyseni, I., ... & Pastorino, U. (2020). Unexpected detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the prepandemic period in Italy. Tumori Journal, 0300891620974755. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0300891620974755

Other studies have suggested similar early transmission: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7428442/

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/2/20-4632_article

I was wondering if there is any justification for including these studies in the article. In another article, editors suggested that these findings may be too preliminary. But I was wondering if there is any justification for including these in the Italy article. Glad to hear thoughts. Dhawk790 (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

should i add more on early cases?
It looks like there's a lot of stuff that needs to be added to this, but I'm asking before i spend too much time on it, because it's really depressing when stuff i thought was helpful gets removed. Irtapil (talk) 05:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * is the a reason this is mostly focused on the response?
 * and why is the Codogno case not mentioned?


 * The 38 year old in Codogno seems to be widely described as the "first COVID-19 patient in Italy" or "Italy’s coronavirus Patient No. 1" - but other cases seem to have been before it?
 * This might be a lot more convoluted than i have time for today. Has this all been previously discussed?
 * Irtapil (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Most of the events were reported in this article, but the corresponding section was later moved into Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. However I agree that in this article we should say something about the beginning and the development of the pandemic in Italy. And probably also have a separate article expanding on the response, and here only a reduced description of the response. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Trentino Alto Adige
As of November 2021, the Trentino Alto Adige is interested by law provisions that preceed another lockdown (details here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.41.124.50 (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of International reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy into COVID-19 pandemic in Italy
A severely dated international reactions article was split off from the main Italy page. It is the only "international reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic in [country]" article on Wikipedia, and epitomizes the massive problem we have with hyperspecific COVID-19 articles that are filled with WP:NOTNEWS/WP:SUMSTYLE proseline violations and too niche to be properly kept up to date. For a brief period in 2020, it might've seemed like this was a logical way to organize our coverage. We now know it didn't turn out that way, and we shouldn't lock ourselves into our past mistakes. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Another potential destination would be International_aid_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic, where the Italy section is entirely empty except for a photo I just added. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The COVID-19 pandemic in Italy was split into many articles because it is very long (and it still is) in terms of post-expand include size. Also there were many discussions about the international reactions section: it was indeed important when the pandemic started because it looked like China and Italy were the main hotspots from where the virus was spreading elsewhere in the world. Anyway, I don't fully understand the merge proposal: from your comments it sounds like you want to delete most of the content of that article, is that correct? If so can you be more specific about your proposal? --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving the article history. Yes, I think the article needs to be drastically trimmed down as part of a merge. Paragraphs like On 24 March, Germany took in six coronavirus patients from the Bergamo hospital to be treated in Saxony. Later the same week, the German health minister said that Germany would take in a total of at least 47 Italian patients. On 25 March, a C-130 from Ramstein Air Base in Germany delivered humanitarian supplies to Aviano Air Base. are way too detailed to be of enduring historical significance and are thus not encyclopedic. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - Seems reasonable. Love of Corey (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, target article is overlarge as it is. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support international reactions to the pandemic in Italy are notable, but they can be covered better in the Italy and Europe pandemic pages. Francesco espo (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, i'm the creator of the article and i'm still expanding it with informations from the Italian article, it's too big and full of information to be in an article such as COVID-19 pandemic in Italy, which is already a big article on its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borteddd (talk • contribs) 11:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Italian Department of Health has revised all-time Covid deaths
Details here. --2001:8003:DDB1:C600:7C02:B72B:E4FB:17E1 (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This article makes a mistake in that it places greater importance to pre-existing conditions. The topic was already discussed in the media, I believe --2001:B07:6469:3006:2833:F11F:CA16:5B66 (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)